Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Prakash Bansilal Bihani —Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No. 442 of 2002
Decided on 30.7.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Mr. Prakash Bansilal Bihani & M/s. Bijoy Mercantile :Mr. Suman Doval, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: United India Insurance Company & Punjab and Sind Bank :Mr. Abhishek Kumar , Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If any illegal connection was taken by complainant and then if short-circuit has been caused, insurance claim is not payable as act of complainant would be an illegal act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Insurance – Damage caused due fire in premises – OP has repudiated claim of complainant on the ground that complainant failed to submit documents as and when asked by Surveyor – If any illegal connection was taken by complainant and then if short-circuit has been caused, insurance claim is not payable as act of complainant would be an illegal act – Complainant has also not come forward to state whether complainant had got a valid connection if same was not given by landlord as per agreement – Illegal connection cannot be as stable as a regular connection and chances of short circuit definitely increase in an illegal connection – Policy requires that immediate intimation should be given to insurance company for any accident – Had information been given to insurance company on same day or at least on next day, Surveyors could have found some lead for cause of fire – Delay in giving information to insurance company further intensifies doubt that fire may be self-engineered – When fire is caused by some illegal act on part of complainant, insurance claim cannot be favourably considered – In such situation, other issues like non-assessment of loss by Surveyors become subsidiary and do not necessitate any further discussion for decision in present complaint – Consumer complaint dismissed. (Paras 3, 4, 15 to 19)
Result: Consumer Case dismissed.
ORDER
Original petition No. 443 of 2002 has been filed by the complainants M/s Bijoy Mercantile Company Ltd. and another against the opposite party/Insurance company. Similarly, Original Petition No.442 of 2002 has been filed by the complainant Prakash Bansilal Bihani against the same Insurance Company. As the place of accident of fire is the same and the opposite party Insurance Company is also the same, therefore, both these cases are being decided together. The facts of the case are similar in both the cases, therefore, facts from OP No.442 of 2002 will be taken for discussion.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has been in the business dealing in electronic components & parts, computer parts and assembling of computer systems against specific orders of clients. Complainant insured his electronic components & other item with OP. Complainant took the larger premises for his business on Lease and License basis by an agreement dated 20.08.2001 from the owner Mr. Bipin Nagda. Under clause 5 of the said agreement electricity was to be provided by the licensor. In the view of the above shifting Complainant by letter dated 23.08.2001 requested OP for the necessary amendments in the following cover notes.
| Policy No | Effective Date |
| 020700/11/16/1080/2000 | 31.10.2000 to 30.10.2001 |
| 020700/11/01/00715 | 30.7.2001 to 29.07.2002 |
| 020700/46/03/16/053772/2000 | 1.11.2000 to 31.10.2001 |
| 020700/46/01/00209 | 30.7.2001 to 29.07.2002 |
3. On 01.09.2001 the entire new premises of the complainant was caught by fire & all the items were totally damaged. The fire brigade gave their report stating the cause of fire to be “Electric Short Circuit”. By letter dated 04.09.2001 complainant informed OP about the occurrence of fire. M/s. Prabha Associates & M/s. SIB & Associates jointly surveyed the premises. Complainant submitted all the documents as required by the surveyor on different times. Complainant sent letter dated 30.9.2002 & 18.11.2002 to OP for the payment of claim amount as it was pending since last 14 months. OP replied vide letter dated 25.11.2002 that they were taking up the matter with the concerned Div office & shall revert back as soon as they hear from the RO. On 30.01.2003, OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant failed to submit the documents as and when asked by the surveyor. Aggrieved by the act of OP & the surveyors, the complainant has filed the complaint before this commission. The relevant prayers made in the complaint are as follows:-
1. To direct OP to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.95 Lakhs being the value of the policy amount and the loss suffered by complainant along with 18% p.a. interest.
2. To direct OP to pay the complainant further sum of Rs.60 Lakhs as damages.
4. Both the opposite parties opposed the complaint by filing reply to the complaint. The Insurance Company reiterated their stand that claim was not payable as the complainant did not supply the relevant documents to the surveyors for assessing the loss. Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits which have been taken on record.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant requested the Insurance Company on 23.08.2001 to transfer the insurance policy for the new premises as the complainant had shifted to the new premises, which was taken on lease vide an agreement dated 20.8.2001. The policy was effective from 30.07.2001 to 29.07.2002. On 01.09.2001, fire broke out in the premises and all the stock was gutted in the fire. The Insurance Company was informed on 04.09.2001. A team of two surveyors was appointed by the Insurance Company to survey the premises and to assess the loss. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that all the documents were provided to the surveyor
